Send comments to the editors:

Email this article to a friend:

Otis IkeBaby Boomer 1 from the series Outside the Green Belt2009Courtesy of the artist. Featured in the exhibition Nowhere Near Here at the Houston Center of Photography and Fotofest, Houston

The blogosphere is abuzz this week with proclamations of Austin’s art implosion.
On Monday April 11, news surfaced that Elizabeth Dunbar’s position as
Curator and Associate Director of Arthouse at the Jones Center was eliminated in a series of budget cutbacks.
Arthouse Director Sue Graze stated that the organization’s “newly
revised, board-approved operating budget incorporated reductions to our
staff salary line," and that the exhibition programming would be handled
by a rotating series of guest curators and traveling exhibitions. The
same day, Arthouse staff member Jenn Gardner announced her resignation
after ten years at the nonprofit, stating that she strongly disagreed
with the concept of Arthouse existing without a full-time curator. Artist protests
swiftly followed suit. A Facebook group entitled “Artists FOR Arthouse”
invited artists to collectively protest the institution’s decision by
using their cards for Arthouse’s annual 5X7 fundraiser as a way to
express their discontent, and on Wednesday, Houston-based artist Dario
Robleto announced his resignation from Arthouse’s Board of Directors.

I
don’t want to use this space to issue sweeping apocalyptic predictions
for the Austin arts community at large. However, I do want to express my
deep disappointment in Arthouse’s decision to eliminate the full-time
curator position. I hold a Master’s degree from the Center for
Curatorial Studies at Bard College, and without belaboring the point,
the notion of the “curatorial” informs what I do.

Some might
contend that programs such as Bard’s could precipitate a move toward a
rethinking of institutional curator positions in favor of independent
curatorial projects. I would argue the contrary. While curatorial
practice has changed substantially in the last few decades, with
non-collecting kunsthalle-type institutions, biennials, performance
festivals and discursive events being just a few of the formats that
have expanded the public perception of the ways in which art can be
presented, the field of curatorial studies serves to reinforce how
curators’ sustained involvement can strengthen institutions,
transforming them from the inside out.

Elizabeth Dunbar’s
appointment as Arthouse’s first full-time curator in 2007 marked the
organization’s maturation. Dunbar brought exciting changes to the
Arthouse from the start, through selecting international artists’ works
to exhibit in the space and focusing on site-specific commissions. In
late 2009, Dunbar’s efforts were rewarded when she was promoted to
Associate Director of Arthouse. In a…mbg interview
from December of that year, Claire Ruud asked what Dunbar’s biggest
challenge would be as Associate Director. She replied: “I think one of
the biggest challenges facing me—and one that acknowledges my dual roles
as administrator and curator—is how to help Arthouse evolve into a
larger organization without losing our creative edge or compromising our
commitment to risk-taking.” This statement seems prescient. Considering
the controversy generated by Arthouse’s recent curatorial programming
of works by Michelle Handelman and Graham Hudson, and Dunbar’s efforts
to defend her efforts through encouraging open dialogue about queer
imagery and institutional self-censorship, it seems the loss of her position was a very unfortunate casualty of institutional growing pains.

What
do curators gain from full-time curatorial positions? For starters,
they gain health insurance and stability. Despite the romantic mythos
surrounding Harald Szeemann’s intellectual genius and rise to fame as
the first independent curator, the most notable independent curators of
today are not true freelancers—not even in European countries where the
idea of a welfare state lives on. Most “independent” curators, including
Maria Lind, Catherine David, Hans-Ulrich Obrist, Charles Esche and Hou
Hanrou, are or were supported to a large degree by some other
institution, whether academia, a position at another art space, a
publication (though that is increasingly rare) or a non-art-related day
job. Back in 2006, Alex Farquharson charted this trend in a frieze
article, using the slightly pejorative term “new institutionalism.”

Arthouse’s
elimination of Dunbar’s position is more a symbolic action than
anything else, one that speaks volumes about its institutional politics.
It says that exhibition curators should be treated the same as
short-term contract employees, and not as one of the building blocks of
an art institution. But without curators, what bricks does the
institution have to stand on? Arthouse has provided one possible answer
in its retention of its Public Programs Curator. The role is a
relatively new one for the institution that reflects its changing
notions of curatorial practice. Without a collaborative effort between
curators of both exhibitions and programs, however, it's unclear how the
Program Curator's role will play out in Arthouse's future. We hope for a
continuation of interesting programming and not a scramble to fill the
gaps created by a series of guest-curated shows.

But let’s move
from architectural metaphors to the architecture itself. In October of
last year, Arthouse opened with a bigger and more spectacular building,
nearly tripling its exhibition space. I dedicated an issue of …mbg
to profiling the institution and its new building, featuring interviews
with some of the artists whose work was first shown in the renovated
spaces. In the wake of Dunbar’s dismissal, the question many are now
asking is whether Arthouse’s new expansion is trying to capitalize on
the “Bilbao effect”
as defined by Witold Rybczynski in The Atlantic in September 2002. In
other words, without a consistent curatorial vision, will the
architecture of Arthouse supercede the importance of the art within, as
some have accused Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim building in Bilbao of doing?
(For an artist’s response to Bilbao, see Little Frank and His Carp, the hilarious artwork by Andrea Fraser.)

The
direction of Arthouse from here on out is an open book, and the Austin
arts community wants the best for it. As an organization that has
supported the local scene through efforts such as the Texas Prize and
the Visiting Lecture series, Arthouse is important to us. While the
organization’s commitment to discursive and satellite programs is
commendable, we ask for a building that lives up to its potential as
exhibition space and as an organization that supports curatorial
risk-taking. When reached for comment, Director Sue Graze responded:
"Arthouse is committed to curatorial voices. Having the freedom to
select guest curators including artists, writers and independent
curators who have various interests, expertise and viewpoints gives
Arthouse the ability to engage different audiences in multi-faceted
ways. We are always nimble and flexible and eager to experiment with new
curatorial models."

*In full disclosure, several principal supporters of …might be good, including Fluent~Collaborative’s Director Laurence Miller, sit on the board of Arthouse.

I’m not privy to everything that went into Arthouse’s decision and believe it was made in good faith. It’s difficult to believe, however, that the indefinite elimination of the in-house curator was the only or best possible resolution.
Among other things, I note that the elimination of that position can cut costs only if Arthouse plans to fulfill the functions performed by that employee in the way Walmart might – i.e., eliminating a full-time, full-benefit position and outsourcing the services to part-time, lesser-compensated individuals.

aApr 18, 2011 | 9:02am

I feel this discussion needs more coverage. It’s not a health choice for the art community in Austin to avoid discussing about a issue of great concern.

WilliamApr 18, 2011 | 11:16am

I happened on your site purely by accident - and read the piece on curators et al at your organization. (I live in California.) As a board member of a contemporary arts organization here and previous museum director I take some exception to your comments. My impression is that financial naivete and the results of expansion are at play. There is a a direct relationship to square footage and operating expenses that generally cannot be mitigated. Staff expense -one of the biggest line-items - is one of the few places where boards have some flexibility to make adjustments. Permanent curators do offer a value-added proposition, but my view is that utilizing "rotating" guest curators is both financially prudent and presents the introduction of multiple curatorial points of view that can be energizing and compelling. Beyond that - why is the board or community not stepping up by contributing to save the position? Where is the fundraising effort? People speak with their checkbooks.
.

RApr 20, 2011 | 8:42am

@ William…Although it seems clear that Arthouse is experiencing financial issues that are due at least in part to the expansion/renovation, your acceptance of this as the actual reason for Ms. Dunbar’s termination is what is naive. As a close friend of someone on the Arthouse Board of Directors, I know that not only was the full Board kept in the dark about this decision, but the Executive Committee was as well. This is significant for at least two reasons. First, this represents a major shift in strategy and mission, something that would warrant discussion on most institutional boards. Secondly, and even more problematically, the dismissal of Ms. Dunbar came directly after she raised concerns to the Executive Director and Board President about how decisions they were making regarding artist and their work jeopardized the Arthouse’s credibility (letters to the press and Arthouse Board from Ms. Handelman and Mr. Hudson both clearly illustrate this point). Here too, none of this information was shared with the rest of the Board.

What is truly at stake here is artistic integrity and the disingenuous dismissal of someone who stood up for what the institution purports to value. What is truly disappointing the lack of Board action to correct this injustice.